alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Office of Justice Programs

          - [OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1551]

# AGENCY:

National Institute of Justice, DOJ.

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting of the NIJ Offender Tracking System Standard Workshop.

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is hosting an Officer Tracking System Standard Workshop specifically to introduce manufacturers, certification bodies and test laboratories to the new                         *Offender Tracking System Standard*                         that is under development and to receive input and feedback. All participants are strongly encouraged to come prepared to ask questions and to voice suggestions and concerns.                    

The workshop will be held on Thursday, May 12, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. (EST) at the 20 F Street, NW., Conference Center, located at 20 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-6701. The meeting room is the Conference Room B. Space is limited at this workshop, and as a result, we request that each participating organization limit their representatives to no more than two. Participants planning to attend are responsible for their own travel arrangements and lodging.

                        Please visit the Web site below to submit your registration request:                         *http://www.justnet.org/​Documents/​NIJ-Offender-Tracking-System-Standard-Workshop-Registration-Form.pdf*                         You will receive a response to your request within two (2) business days.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jack Harne, by telephone at 202-616-2911 [                        **Note:**                         this is not a toll-free telephone number], or by e-mail at                         *Jack.Harne@usdoj.gov*.                    

John H. Laub,

Director, National Institute of Justice.

[FR Doc. 2011-9903 Filed 4-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet at July 31, 1999 (Unaudited) and the Statement of Income for the Six
Months Ended July 31, 1999 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,897,322
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               44,760,857
<ALLOWANCES>                                   987,858
<INVENTORY>                                  3,425,176
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            52,574,744
<PP&E>                                      16,666,510
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,890,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             111,464,824
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,147,975
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       166,817
<OTHER-SE>                                  94,769,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               111,464,824
<SALES>                                     32,463,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,463,623
<CGS>                                       18,730,179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,453,748
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (173,944)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             696,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,800,138
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,976,934
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,823,204
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,823,204
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
### §2346b. Emergency assistance

(a) Of the funds appropriated to carry out this part, up to $75,000,000 for the fiscal year 1986 and up to $75,000,000 for the fiscal year 1987 may be made available for emergency use under this part when the national interests of the United States urgently require economic support to promote economic or political stability.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this part or of an appropriations Act (including a joint resolution making continuing appropriations) which earmarks funds available to carry out this part for a specific country or purpose, up to 5 percent of each amount so earmarked may be used to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 87–195, pt. II, §533, formerly §535, as added Pub. L. 97–113, title II, §202, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1530; renumbered §533 and amended Pub. L. 99–83, title II, §201(b), Aug. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 211.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 2346d of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 99–83.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2346b, Pub. L. 87–195, pt. II, §533, as added Pub. L. 97–113, title II, §202, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1530, related to grants for eastern Mediterranean programs, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–83, title II, §201(a), Aug. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 210.

Another prior section 2346b, Pub. L. 87–195, pt. II, §533, as added Pub. L. 96–533, title II, §202, Dec. 16, 1980, 94 Stat. 3143, related to Central American economic support, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 97–113, §202, Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1529.

Another prior section 2346b, Pub. L. 87–195, pt. II, §533, as added Pub. L. 95–92, §8(c), Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 618; amended Pub. L. 95–384, §10(a), Sept. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 735; Pub. L. 96–92, §8(c), Oct. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 704, provided for a Southern Africa economic support program, including availability of funds and assistance requirements and limitations, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–533, title II, §202, Dec. 16, 1980, 94 Stat. 3142.

Another prior section 2346b, Pub. L. 87–195, pt. II, §533, as added Pub. L. 92–226, pt. II, §202(a), Feb. 7, 1972, 86 Stat. 27, provided for a Vietnam special dollar account for coverage of United States refund claims, amount in account, and maintenance of dollar level, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 93–189, §13(2), Dec. 17, 1973, 87 Stat. 722.

#### Amendments

1985—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–83, §202(b)(1), substituted "1986" and "1987" for "1982" and "1983", respectively.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1985 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–83 effective Oct. 1, 1985, see section 1301 of Pub. L. 99–83, set out as a note under section 2151–1 of this title.
§ 355.16 Disqualification of reviewing official or ALJ. ( a ) A reviewing official or ALJ in a particular case may disqualify himself or herself at any time.
( b ) A party may file with the ALJ a motion for disqualification of a reviewing official or an ALJ. Such motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit alleging personal bias or other reason for disqualification.
( c ) Such motion and affidavit shall be filed promptly upon the party's discovery of reasons requiring disqualification, or such objections shall be deemed waived.
( d ) Such affidavit shall state specific facts that support the party's discovery of such facts. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of the representative of record that it is made in good faith.
( e ) Upon the filing of such a motion and affidavit, the ALJ shall proceed no further in the case until he or she resolves the matter of disqualification in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
( f ) ( 1 ) If the ALJ determines that a reviewing official is disqualified, the ALJ shall dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
( 2 ) If the ALJ disqualifies himself or herself, the case shall be reassigned promptly to another ALJ.
( 3 ) If the ALJ denies a motion to disqualify, the authority head may determine the matter only as part of his or her review of the initial decision upon appeal, if any.
### §283ii. Securities issued by the Corporation

#### (a) Exempted securities

Any securities issued by the Corporation (including any guarantee by the Corporation, whether or not limited in scope) in connection with the raising of funds for inclusion in the Corporation's resources as defined in article II, section 2 of the agreement, and any securities guaranteed by the Corporation as to both principal and interest to which the commitment in article II, section 2(e) of the agreement is expressly applicable, shall be deemed to be exempted securities within the meaning of section 77c(a)(2) of title 15 and section 78c(a)(12) of title 15. The Corporation shall file with the Securities and Exchange Commission such annual and other reports with regard to such securities as the Commission shall determine to be appropriate in view of the special character of the Corporation and its operations as necessary in the public interest or for the protection of investors.

#### (b) Suspension by Securities and Exchange Commission

The Securities and Exchange Commission, acting in consultation with such agency or officer as the President shall designate, is authorized to suspend the provisions of subsection (a) at any time as to any or all securities issued or guaranteed by the Corporation during the period of such suspension. The Commission shall include in its annual reports to Congress such information as it shall deem advisable with regard to the operations and effect of this section and in connection therewith shall include any views submitted for such purpose by any association of dealers registered with the Commission.

(Pub. L. 98–473, title I, §101(1) [title I], Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1884, 1885.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 210 of title II of S. 2416, Ninety-eighth Congress, as introduced Mar. 13, 1984, and enacted into law by Pub. L. 98–473.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

Section 2 of Ex. Ord. No. 12567, Oct. 2, 1986, 51 F.R. 35495, provided that: "The functions vested in the President by Section 210 of the Inter-American Investment Corporation Act [this section] are hereby delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury."
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 143

 145

 148

 146

 148

 136

 146

 138

 144

 145

 139

 140

 140

 149

 146

 143

 139

 135

 132

 134

 142

 153

 154

 158

 175

 173

 192

 217

 225

 217

 234

 120

 119

 113

 110

 108

 115

 115

 108

 115

 108

 107

 104

 105

 105

 107

 106

 102

 98

 102

 106

 108

 108

 106

 113

 121

 130

 133

 130

 132

 133

 134

 134

 129

 128

 130

 127

 126

 130

 125

 133

 129

 121

 121

 119

 124

 124

 124

 120

 115

 114

 122

 126

 134

 135

 131

 147

 155

 156

 161

 163

 159

 163

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 5, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 13 (O'NEILL)
#### Susan Haak, Respondent, v. Buffalo, Rochester and Pittsburgh Railway Company, Appellant.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and dis*929bursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. All concurred, except Kruse, P. J., who dissented; Foote, J., not sitting.
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean

1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0

3 0 0 0

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

8 0 0 0

9 0 0 0

10 0 0 0

11 0 0 0

12 0 0 0

13 0 0 0

14 0 0 0

15 0 0 0

16 0 0 0

17 0 0 0

18 0 0 0

19 0 0 0

20 0 0 0

21 0 0 0

22 0 0 0

23 0 0 0

24 0 0 0

25 0 0 0

26 0 0 0

27 0 0 0

28 0 0 0

29 0 0 0

30 0 0 0

COMMENT(S): 0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Port Chicago Bottom In Suisun Bay

Run Date: 5/2/2024

April 2024
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Elfreda Ziegenhain, Respondent, v. Herman Ziegenhain, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.
UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Keshawn M. BOCAGE

Aviation Electrician’s Mate Airman Recruit (E-1)

U.S. Navy

Appellant

NMCCA No. 202000206

Panel 3

ORDER

Reconsidering Opinion

In accordance with Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 31(a), it is, by the Court, this 1st day of February 2022, 

ORDERED: 

That the Court’s 31 January 2022 decision is hereby WITHDRAWN.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court

Copy to:

45 (CAPT Belsky); 46 (LT Martino); 02
### §1631e. Rules by district courts; appeals

The district courts of the United States are given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise, and all such orders and decrees, and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this subchapter, with a right of appeal from the final order or decree of such court as provided in chapter 83 of title 28.

(Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, title II, §206, as added Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 645, §3, 69 Stat. 563; amended Pub. L. 100–352, §6(g), June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 664.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–352 substituted "chapter 83" for "sections 1252, 1254, 1291, and 1292".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–352 effective ninety days after June 27, 1988, except that such amendment not to apply to cases pending in Supreme Court on such effective date or affect right to review or manner of reviewing judgment or decree of court which was entered before such effective date, see section 7 of Pub. L. 100–352, set out as a note under section 1254 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
### §2507f. Establishment of a policy on stalking

#### (a) In general

The President shall develop and implement a comprehensive policy on stalking that—

(1) requires an immediate, effective, and thorough response from the Peace Corps upon receipt of a report of stalking;

(2) provides, during training, all Peace Corps volunteers with a point of contact for the reporting of stalking; and

(3) protects the confidentiality of volunteers who report stalking to the maximum extent practicable.

#### (b) Development and consultation with experts

In developing the stalking policy under subsection (a), the President shall consult with and incorporate, as appropriate, the recommendations and views of those with expertise regarding the crime of stalking.

#### (c) Training of in-country staff

The President shall provide for the training of all in-country staff regarding the stalking policy developed under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 87–293, title I, §8F, as added Pub. L. 112–57, §2, Nov. 21, 2011, 125 Stat. 742.)
#### In the Matter of Claude A. Lindquist, Petitioner, against Rudolph H. Swanson, as Chief of the Fire Department of the City of Jamestown, et al., Respondents.

Motion for reargument denied; motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 802.]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEITH ADAIR DAVIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WILLIAMS HAYES, Director, individually 

and in his official capacity, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35433

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01709-RSM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Keith Adair Davis appeals pro se from the district 

court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging use of excessive force while he was a pretrial 

detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35433

Williams v. Paramo, 775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Davis did not

exhaust his administrative remedies, and he failed to raise a genuine dispute of 

material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to 

him. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act requires “proper exhaustion . . . which means using all steps that the agency 

holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the 

merits).” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ross v. Blake, 

136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858-60 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative 

remedies are unavailable).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider Davis’s 

opposition to the motion for summary judgment because Davis failed to establish 

excusable neglect for the untimely filing. See Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., 

Inc., 654 F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and 

explaining that “it is never an abuse of discretion for a district court to exclude 

untimely evidence when a party fails to submit that evidence pursuant to a motion, 

as Rule 6(b) expressly requires”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(“[P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”).

We reject as meritless Davis’s contentions that the district court held him to 

a “higher standard” as a pro se litigant, implied that he was “not credible,” and held 
3 18-35433

“technical misunderstandings” against him.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 543

 526

 528

 561

 624

 647

 707

 850

 781

 856

 889

 876

 790

 634

 562

 553

 512

 544

 625

 733

 755

 653

 597

 671

 694

 722

 659

 640

 649

 538

 175

 170

 173

 174

 190

 186

 180

 195

 218

 193

 199

 192

 185

 190

 189

 186

 185

 188

 191

 188

 194

 183

 179

 178

 174

 173

 162

 181

 179

 152

 291

 301

 315

 330

 350

 347

 360

 433

 417

 419

 425

 416

 379

 345

 336

 345

 337

 330

 346

 382

 402

 367

 347

 344

 372

 386

 380

 398

 398

 338

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2016 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 19, 2016

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

SAN ANDREAS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
§ 411.435 How will disputes arising under the agreements between ENs and State VR agencies be resolved? Disputes arising under agreements between ENs and State VR agencies must be resolved using the following steps: ( a ) When procedures for resolving disputes are spelled out in the agreement between the EN and the State VR agency, those procedures must be used.
( b ) If procedures for resolving disputes are not included in the agreement between the EN and the State VR agency and procedures for resolving disputes under contracts and interagency agreements are provided for in State law or administrative procedures, the State procedures must be used to resolve disputes under agreements between ENs and State VR agencies.
( c ) If procedures for resolving disputes are not spelled out in the agreement or in State law or administrative procedures, the EN or the State VR agency may request that the PM recommend a resolution to the dispute. ( 1 ) The request must be in writing and include: ( i ) a copy of the agreement;
( ii ) information on the issue(s) in dispute; and
( iii ) information on the position of both the EN and the State VR agency regarding the dispute.
( 2 ) The PM has 20 calendar days after receiving a written request to recommend a resolution to the dispute. If either the EN or the State VR agency does not agree with the PM's recommended resolution to the dispute, the EN or the State VR agency has 30 calendar days after receiving the PM's recommendation to request a decision by us on the matter in dispute.